quarterly progress meeting november 2018...• political and education challenges (legislative...
TRANSCRIPT
Land Use Options
EvaluationRenee Thompson
Maintain Healthy Watersheds GIT,
Coordinator
Quarterly Progress Meeting – November 2018
Land Conservation GoalConserve landscapes treasured by citizens in order to maintain water quality and habitat; sustain working
forests, farms and maritime communities; and conserve lands of cultural, indigenous and community value.
Outcome
• Evaluation of policy options, incentives and planning tools that can
help local governments reduce the rate of conversion of
agricultural lands, forests and wetlands by the end of 2017
• Development of strategies to support local government efforts in
reducing land conversion rates by 2025 and beyond
Full outcome language
Through the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, the Chesapeake Bay Program has committed to…
What We Want
Support integration into
existing CBP efforts
• Invite subject matter
experts to present to your
relevant groups
• Increase collaboration and
incorporate policies, plans,
and incentives for reducing
land conversion into your
work
• Tap into sources for local
government engagement
and outreach to develop
"strategies"
Signatory and initial
Participating Partners
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agreement Signatories
▪ State of Delaware
▪ State of Maryland (Department of
Planning)
▪ District of Columbia
▪ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
▪ Commonwealth of Virginia
▪ U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
▪ Chesapeake Bay Commission (CBC)
Other Key Participants
▪ Local Government Advisory
Committee (LGAC)
▪ U.S. Fish Wildlife Service (USFWS)
▪ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
▪ National Park Service (NPS)
▪ USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS)
▪ The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
Current
Participating Partners
Maintain Healthy Watersheds GIT
Renee Thompson, Coordinator
Katherine Wares, Staffer
Note: We are not seeking to form a
new workgroup. We aim to better
tie into existing efforts.
Setting the Stage:What are our assumptions?1
Context & Background
Reducing the rate of conversion helps maintain:
• Clean water and healthy waters
• Resilience (flooding, climate change,
invasives)
• Social and economic benefits
• Drinking water sources
• Critical habitat and connectivity
• Recreational opportunities
Cost to Protect
VS.
Cost to Restore
Logic Behind Our
Outcome
• Political and Education Challenges
(legislative engagement)
• Sustaining the Ag and Forestry
Industries (funding and finances)
• Ability to Engage Local Governments in Conducting the
Evaluation (education and outreach)
• Technical Challenges
• CBP and HWGIT capacity• Knowledge of how to
package materials
effectively for local
governments
• Knowledge of how to reach our audience (local
governments, planners, and
officials)
Following the Decision Framework:
Factors Influencing Current Efforts & Gaps
Logic Behind Our
Outcome, Cont.
Following the Decision Framework:
1. Determine the spectrum of existing “policy
options, incentives and planning tools”
2. Gather materials and putting them on a
platform local leaders can/will access (in
consultation with CBP Comm/Web Team)3. Survey local governments and interest
groups to determine most effective “policy
options, incentives and planning tools”
Management Approaches
Progress:Are we doing what we said we would do?2
What is our progress?
Target:
• By the end 2017, evaluate policy options, incentives and
planning tools that could assist local gov’ts in reducing the
rate of conversion
Progress:
• Approach to Chesapeake Bay Land Use Policy Tasks
• Conservation Land-Use Policy Toolkit
• Healthy Watersheds Forest Retention Project
What is our progress?
Target:
• By 2025 and beyond, develop strategies for supporting
local gov’ts in reducing land conversion rates
In Progress:
• In close consultation and coordination with Land Use Methods
and Metrics, Local Government Advisory Council, Local
Leadership, Communications, Web and GIS Teams.
• Land Policy BMPs
Blue tints represent the proportion of lands* that
are threatened by future
development
* Land refers to areas that are suitable for near-term
development
Vulnerability to Land Conversion
What is our progress?
Approach to Land Policy Tasks (2015)
• Provided recommendations on how to
achieve the outcome and outlined 3 tasks
1) Survey to identify effective options and
needs
2) Identify existing policy options,
incentives, and tools
3) Online repository of policy examples
• Deliverables: Report
What is our progress?
Conservation Land-Use Policy Toolkit
(2017)
• Determined existing policy options,
incentives, and planning tools that could
be used by local government planners
to reduce the rate of ag, forest, and
wetland conversion
• Deliverables: Toolkit, Webinar
What is our progress?
Healthy Watersheds Forest Retention
Project (2014 – present)
• Phase I: Quantified the value of retaining
forestland (economic case for “crediting
conservation”)
• Phase II: VA/PA partnership – Worked with
localities to identify policy tools and
incentives
• Phase III: Implement tools in the field and
develop large-scale private sector financing
model• Deliverables: Toolbox
What’s in the “Toolboxes”?
Land Use Policies,
Zoning and
Regulations
Land Acquisition
Local Spending and
Tax Polices
Voluntary Land Protection
Techniques
What is our progress?
▪ Land Policy BMPs represent coordinated state
approaches to implement measures that reduce land
conversion rates.
▪ Place an emphasis on each state's roles in supporting
and/or encouraging local government efforts to
reduce land conversion rates with a combination of
land protection and planning strategies.
Link Crediting Land
Conservation and Planning
in the Bay TMDL with
"strategies to reduce land
conversion"
Challenges:Are our actions having the expected
effect?3
Challenges
Factors Gaps Approaches
• Gather materials
and put them on a
platform
(use
partner coordination to
address)
• Survey to determine
effective options(still needed?)
• HWGIT capacity
• Knowledge on how
to package materials
and reach audience (use partner coordination
to address)
• Education and
Outreach to Local,
State Governments (use partner coordination
to address)
• Local Engagement Challenges and Needs
Adaptations:How should we adapt?4
Based on what we’ve
learned, we plan to…
Increase Partner Coordination
• Work with CBP groups (LUWG, LGAC, Local Leadership and Comm and Web Team) to
distill information into effective materials for local practitioners who influence land use
change.
Collaborate with existing CBP Efforts
• Work with other outcomes to incorporate policies, plans, and incentives for reducing
land conversion into workplans and projects
• Work more directly with Land Use Methods and Metrics outcome to sync rates of
change with “tools” to help locals address vulnerabilities.
Improve Local Government Education and Outreach
• Potentially using the LGEI model to get information out to locals
Healthy Watersheds Goal
•Healthy Watersheds
Land Conservation Goal
• Protected Lands
• Land Use Methods
and Metrics
Vital Habitats Goal• Brook Trout
• Fish Habitat
• SAV• Tree Canopy
StewardshipGoal
Cross Outcomes Considerations
•Local Leadership
Cross Outcome: Factor Influencing Success – Land Use
>20% developed land
negatively affects SAV
>4% impervious surface
negatively affects
brook trout
What We Want
Support integration into existing
CBP efforts
• Invite subject matter experts to
present to your relevant
groups
• Increase collaboration and
incorporate policies, plans,
and incentives for reducing
land conversion into your work
• Tap into sources for local
government engagement and
outreach to develop
"strategies"
Discussion